Scientific Online Resource System

Scripta Scientifica Medicinae Dentalis

Conventional vs. digital impression technique for manufacturing of three-unit zirconia bridges: Evaluation of patients’ perception, preference, and treatment comfort

Kiril Gogushev, Metodi Abadjiev, Zornitsa Valcheva

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Taking an impression of the oral cavity, which accurately recreates the prosthetic field, the surrounding hard dental and soft tissues, is one of the main and most important stages in the process of making any fixed prosthetic structure.

AIM: The aim of the present study is to compare the comfort and satisfaction of patients in need of prosthetic restoration of a defect in the dentition, using conventional and digital impression techniques and to determine their preference for any of them.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The satisfaction of 36 patients in need of prosthetic rehabilitation treatment with conventional and digital impression techniques was analyzed and compared. After completing the stages of conventional and digital impressions, patients were asked to complete a comparative questionnaire of 9 questions using a numerical rating scale (NRS), stating their preference for one of the two techniques.

RESULTS: Regarding the conventional impression technique, we obtained the lowest average values according to the criteria “general discomfort” (6.44±2.09), “total time for execution of the impression technique” (6.14±1.53), and “nausea” (6.17±2.86). The results of the same criteria in digital impression technology showed a significantly better response. All examined patients preferred the digital impression technique in cases where more than one impression had to be taken. 

DISCUSSION: Our results show that patients identify digital impressions as more comfortable for them. Differences in the level of comfort, which included nausea, difficulty breathing, discomfort in the TMJ with a wide open mouth, were statistically significant (p <0.001).

CONCLUSION: In terms of patient comfort and satisfaction, the digital impression technique is better perceived than the conventional one.

 


Keywords

clinical study, digital, impression, preference, comfort, patient

Full Text


References

Christensen GJ. The Challenge to Conventional Impressions. J Am Dent Assoc. 2008;139(3):347-9. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2008.0165.

Davidowitz G, Kotick PG. The use of CAD/CAM in dentistry. Dent Clin North Am. 2011;55(3):559-70, ix. doi: 10.1016/j.cden.2011.02.011.

Haddadi Y, Bahrami G, Isidor F. Evaluation of operating time and patient perception using conventional impression taking and intraoral scanning for crown manufacture: a split-mouth, randomized clinical study. Int J Prosthodont. 2018;31(31):55–9. doi: 10.11607/ijp.5405.

Zimmermann M, Mehl A, Mörmann WH, Reich S. Intraoral scanning systems - a current overview. Int J Comput Dent. 2015;18(2):101–29

Means CR, Flenniken IE. Gagging–a problem in prosthetic dentistry. J Prosthet Dent. 1970;23(6):614–20. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(70)90224-6.

Muir JD, Calvert EJ. Vomiting during the taking of dental impressions. Two case reports of the use of psychological techniques. Br Dent J. 1988;165(4): 139–41. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4806525.

Joda T, Brägger U. Patient-centered outcomes comparing digital and conventional implant impression procedures: a randomized crossover trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;27(12):e185-e189. doi: 10.1111/clr.12600.

Burhardt L, Livas C, Kerdijk W, van der Meer WJ, Ren Y. Treatment comfort, time perception, and preference for conventional and digital impression techniques: A comparative study in young patients. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2016;150(2):261–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.12.027.

Wismeijer D, Mans R, van Genuchten M, Reijers HA. Patients' preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (Intraoral Scan) of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014;25(10):1113–8. doi: 10.1111/clr.12234.

Goracci C, Franchi L, Vichi A, Ferrari M. Accuracy, reliability, and eficiency of intraoral scanners for full-arch impressions: A systematic review of the clinical evidence. Eur J Orthod. 2016;38(4):422-8. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjv077.

Patzelt SB, Lamprinos C, Stampf S, Att W. The time efficiency of intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparative study. J Am Dent Assoc. 2014;145(6):542–51. doi: 10.14219/jada.2014.23.

Lecocq G. Digital impression-taking: Fundamentals and benefits in orthodontics. Int Orthod. 2016;14(2):184–94.

Katreva I. Advantages of alpha-adrenomimetic decongestants over conventional chemical agents for gingival retraction in order to avoid unwanted systemic side effects. PhD Thesis. Medical University of Varna; 2015. (in Bulgarian).

Muller P, Ender A, Joda T, Katsoulis J. Impact of digital intraoral scan strategies on the impression accuracy using the TRIOS Pod scanner. Quintessence Int. 2016;47(4):343-9. doi: 10.3290/j.qi.a35524.

Farah JW, Brown L. Comparison of the fit of crowns based on digital impressions with 3M ESPE lava chairside oral scanner C.O.S. vs. traditional impressions. Dent Adv Res Report. 2009;22:1-3.

Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir H. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients' perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health. 2014;14:10. doi: 10.1186/1472-6831-14-10.

Grünheid T, McCarthy SD, Larson BE. Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: An assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014; 146(5):673-82. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.07.023.

Christensen GJ. Will digital impressions eliminate the current problems with conventional impressions? J Am Dent Assoc. 2008;139(6):761-3. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2008.0258.

Sailer I, Mühlemann S, Fehmer V, Hämmerle CHF, Benic GI. Randomized controlled clinical trial of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of zirconia-ceramic fixed partial dentures. Part I: time efficiency of complete-arch digital scans versus conventional impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;121(1):69-75. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.04.021.

Lee SJ, Gallucci GO. Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24(1):111-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02430.x.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14748/ssmd.v7i1.7663

Refbacks

About The Authors

Kiril Gogushev
Medical University of Varna

Department of Prosthetic Dental Medicine, Faculty of Dental Medicine

Metodi Abadjiev
Medical University of Varna

Department of Prosthetic Dental Medicine, Faculty of Dental Medicine

Zornitsa Valcheva
Medical University of Varna

Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine

Font Size


|